Customary Law – Rights of Daughters – Plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased Prithi Singh, claimed rights to his ancestral property – Trial Court found in their favor, affirming they succeeded the estate over collaterals – Lower Appellate Court reversed, ruling defendants acquired ownership by adverse possession – High Court emphasized daughters' inheritance rights under customary law and Hindu Succession Act, rejecting exclusive male succession claims [Paras 9-13].

Adverse Possession – Pleading and Proof Requirements – Defendants failed to establish adverse possession, lacking specific pleading on when and how possession became hostile – High Court found no evidence of ouster or hostile possession against plaintiffs – Restored Trial Court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Findings of lower Appellate Court on adverse possession reversed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court restored – Plaintiffs recognized as co-owners of the suit land.
 

Premature Release – Application of Government Policy – Petitioner sought premature release under the 1991 policy of the Punjab Government – Contention on inclusion of parole period in the calculation of actual imprisonment – State's policy changed in 2020 to exclude parole period from actual sentence – Court held the policy at the time of conviction governs premature release – Parole period must be included in actual imprisonment as per policy effective during conviction [Paras 6-8].

Policy Interpretation – Prospective vs. Retrospective Application – Government policy changes in 2020 cannot be applied retrospectively – Court emphasized fairness in applying policies as per legal position at the time of conviction unless a more beneficial regime is later provided [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner entitled to consideration for premature release based on policy dated 08.07.1991 – State directed to process petitioner's release within two months – Parole period to be included in actual imprisonment calculation [Para 8].

Adverse Possession – Legal Requirements – Defendants claimed ownership by adverse possession – Courts found defendants failed to prove hostile, open, and continuous possession – Claim of adverse possession inherently acknowledges the title of another party – Supreme Court precedent emphasized inconsistency in claiming both ownership and adverse possession simultaneously [Paras 5-7].

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Tenancy Rights – First Appellate Court erred in finding defendants to be tenants, thus denying jurisdiction to Civil Court – Defendants had consistently claimed adverse possession, not tenancy – Civil Court jurisdiction upheld for possession claims where defendants deny title and assert adverse possession [Paras 8-12].

Denial of Title and Forfeiture of Tenancy – Denouncing plaintiff's title in written statements can result in forfeiture of tenancy rights – Civil Court jurisdiction affirmed based on precedents from higher judiciary – New claims or defenses not pleaded cannot be considered [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Plaintiffs entitled to possession of the suit land as title holders – Defendants' adverse possession claims dismissed – Judgments of trial courts restored – Decree of possession granted to plaintiffs in both civil suits [Paras 13].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope and Principles – The High Court emphasized that judgments of acquittal should not be interfered with lightly and appellate courts must be extremely careful in such cases. Only when perversity of fact and law is found should an acquittal be overturned [Paras 41-42].

Evidence – Inconsistent Testimonies – Material improvements and contradictions in witness testimonies (particularly PW1 and PW6) were noted. The prosecution failed to produce documentary evidence supporting the alleged business dealings and threats, shaking the credibility of their witnesses [Paras 43-45, 48-50].

Procedural Requirements – Section 195 Cr.P.C. – The absence of a compliant filed under Section 195 Cr.P.C. by the injured police officer (HC Darshan Singh) was critical. The Court highlighted the procedural necessity for a complaint to be filed by the public servant before the competent Court for taking cognizance of offenses under Section 186 IPC [Paras 46, 50].

Investigation Flaws – Non-examination of Key Evidence – The Court pointed out significant investigative lapses such as failure to recover used cartridges, non-verification of the firearm’s condition, and failure to substantiate the mechanical inspection report of the damaged vehicle [Paras 50-51].

Witness Credibility – Hostile Witnesses – The testimony of PW2 (alleged eye witness) did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The Court noted the failure to involve independent witnesses present at the scene [Paras 52-53].

Defense of Alibi – Substantiated – The respondents' alibi, supported by documentary evidence and mobile tower location records, was deemed credible. This evidence contradicted the prosecution's timeline and location of the alleged crime [Paras 54-55].

Decision: Application for leave to appeal dismissed – The High Court found no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the trial court’s judgment acquitting the respondents. The State’s appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, affirming the trial court's decision [Paras 55-57].

Income Tax – Assessment Order – Writ Petition challenging assessment order issued without proper notice to petitioner – Address discrepancy noted; notices returned undelivered – Petitioner claimed lack of opportunity to contest assessment due to incorrect address – Court found fault with petitioner for not updating address with Income Tax Department but recognized the necessity for petitioner to be heard – Assessment order set aside subject to payment of costs and re-assessment directed [Paras 1-6].

Procedure for Assessment – Importance of Proper Notice – Emphasized that taxpayers must update current addresses with tax authorities – Highlighted procedural lapse in serving notices and conducting assessments without taxpayer’s knowledge – Court mandated reasonable opportunity and personal hearing for petitioner during re-assessment [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed with Costs – Assessment order dated 10.01.2024 set aside on condition of petitioner paying Rs.15,000 as costs to Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai – Respondent directed to provide portal access for petitioner to submit reply and conduct reassessment with opportunity for personal hearing via video conference within four months [Para 6-7].

Electricity Connection - Alternative Remedy - Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum: Petitioner sought court direction for a new electricity connection amidst pending civil suit for property possession and criminal writ for protection. High Court emphasized the statutory framework for consumer grievances under the Electricity Act, providing an effective, expeditious remedy through the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman. It underscored that writ petitions should not bypass prescribed statutory remedies unless exceptions apply [Paras 1-17].

Civil Procedure - Application of Order II Rule 2 CPC: Court noted petitioner’s previous suit encompassed similar relief for electricity load restoration, thus Order II Rule 2 CPC barred repetitive litigation in alternative forums. Petitioner’s claim of a new cause of action was rejected as misleading, portraying an artificial distinction to evade statutory process [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - Petitioner directed to seek remedy through statutory consumer grievance mechanisms. Court highlighted procedural integrity and necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 12-17].

Hindu Succession Act – Coparcenary Rights – Plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased Murugan, claimed coparcenary rights in the ancestral properties – Defendants contended that the properties were self-acquired by D1 – High Court held that all the suit properties are ancestral and plaintiffs are entitled to coparcenary rights by birth under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Trial Court’s findings on coparcenary status and superstructures reversed – [Paras 14-35].

Evidence Act – Additional Evidence – Plaintiffs filed petitions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to receive additional documents – High Court allowed the petitions, marking the documents as Ex-A.8 to Ex-A.11 – Documents were vital to decide the dispute [Paras 15-18].

Civil Procedure – Sale Deeds and GPA – Transactions pending suit – Certain sale deeds and GPA executed by D1 in favour of D2 and others during the pendency of the suit – High Court held that transactions were done to defeat plaintiffs’ rights – Transactions not protected under proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Paras 30-33].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court modified – Preliminary decree granted to plaintiffs for 1/3 share each in ancestral properties – Suit dismissed in respect of certain properties due to prior valid sale deeds – CMP petitions allowed, additional documents received and marked [Paras 35].
 

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 9 – Civil suit for possession of agricultural land – Ejectment of tenant – Denial of landlord’s title – Jurisdiction of civil court – The Court held that if defendants deny the title of the plaintiffs in their written statement, it is sufficient to hold that they have denounced the title of the plaintiff, thereby giving the civil court jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession [Para 10].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 27 – Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 – Section 51 – Tenancy of agricultural land – Adverse possession – The defendants claimed adverse possession but did not plead tenancy. The First Appellate Court incorrectly found them to be tenants. The Court emphasized that findings cannot go beyond pleadings, and evidence led beyond pleadings should not be appreciated [Paras 11, 13].

Adverse Possession – Requirements – The Court noted that adverse possession must be hostile, actual, visible, exclusive, and continuous over the statutory period. The defendants' plea of adverse possession was not supported by evidence, and thus they did not perfect their title by adverse possession [Paras 5-7].

Denial of Title and Tenancy Rights – The Court ruled that denying the title of the plaintiffs by claiming ownership through adverse possession results in forfeiting tenancy rights. The civil court has jurisdiction to grant possession to the plaintiffs in such cases [Paras 9-10].

Decision: The appeals filed by the plaintiffs (RSA-1735-1990 and RSA-1734-1990) are allowed. The suits filed by the plaintiffs for possession are decreed in toto. The appeal filed by one of the defendants (RSA-1245-1990) is dismissed. The judgments of the trial courts in both suits are restored.

Criminal Complaint – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners challenged the summoning order by the Trial Court, claiming lack of essential ingredients of the alleged offences – Cited Supreme Court precedents on the necessity of reasoned orders for summoning – Court observed complaint lacked specific allegations and appeared motivated by personal vendetta – Complaint and proceedings quashed [Paras 2-3, 11-15].

Locus Standi – Legitimacy of Complaint – Court noted respondent No.2 (mother of deceased first husband) lacked locus standi as aggrieved party – Pension disbursement department would be the appropriate complainant if any fraud was committed [Para 11].

Policy and Legal Precedents – Summoning and Quashing Guidelines – Emphasized careful scrutiny of complaints alleging vexatious and frivolous litigation – Cited Supreme Court judgments on appropriate exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of legal process [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Summoning order and all subsequent proceedings quashed – Complaint deemed motivated by personal revenge rather than legal merit [Para 15].